Comments from a Ragozin User

[jimbo66]

Jerry,

I ran down to OTB yesterday afternoon about 10 minutes before the 8th race when I saw Royal Affirmed scratch out of the race.  I was looking at the T-Graph numbers and saw how fast Celtic Memories was compared to the even money favorite Fortune Writers.  I was concerned about a speed duel though and didn\'t decide to bet until I saw the scratch.  Anyway, I ran down and made a bet on the horse and then saw a $10.00 horse with 1 minute to post pay $7.20.  But anyway, the purpose of this email is not to redboard. Let me get to the point.  I was talking to somebody at the OTB (usually not a good thing) and explaining why I loved the 1, whom he also loved, saying the horse was fastest on his figures also.  I asked him what figures he used.  He mentioned he used Ragozin.  After the race, we got into a discussion about figures.  I explained I have been only been using the T-Graph numbers for a few months and he said he had been using Ragozin for many years.  I asked him why he used Ragozin instead of T-Graph.  He gave me three reasons, one of which I think is stupid, but the other two I think are worth asking you about.

First off, I should explain he mentioned he has become friendly with Len and picks up his figures often in person.

The three reasons he said he thinks Ragozin is superior were:

1.  He thinks the negative numbers in Thorograph are \"confusing\" and finds it ridiculous that cheap claimers can run \"2\'s\" and \"3\'s\".  This is obviously the reason I think is stupid.  A scale is a scale.  Personally, I wouldn\'t care if you started at 1,000 and went down from there.  But to each his own.

2.  He said that Len had explained to him that \"Jerry Brown makes up changing variants during the racing cards as a product differentiator,  basically fudging the change in variants\".

3.  He said that Len told him and he also noticed that \"T-Graph comes up with way too many pairups compared to Ragozin\" and that makes him question the accuracy of the figures.

To point #2, I had recently listened to your discussion of track variants in the archives and you convinced me that the variant changes.  However, what I can\'t figure out is how you measure it?  How can you tell what the moisture changed from, when the shadows showed up, exactly how much water is put on the track.  To me, knowing the variant changes and trying to account for it accurately are two different things.

To point #3, I am just curious if you have ever heard this before. I found it a bit strange.  

Anyway, don\'t go on the defensive here, I am not trying to attack you at all, I just found the conversation with this guy pretty interesting and thought it would be good to get your feedback.

Jim

[mandown]

Jimbo,

It\'s way past Jerry\'s bedtime so I\'ll get in first - though the chances of JB passing this one up are somewhat on the slim side.

The whole difference between the figure-making methodologies is that Jerry fits races to the horses\'s previous figures (as do most figure-makers worldwide) and thus can have different variants for different races whereas Ragozin believes that variants only change when there is a change in the \'physical resiliency\' of the track.

Basically the way we make figures is that we evaluate the variant by looking at the figures the horses ran previously. Ragozin assess the change in the track\'s physical resiliency, i.e. the imponderables you raise in Point 2. Methinks the question you should be posing is how they do it, not how we do it.

Point 3 rather follows on from the above. If you think either it or my previous point are wrong then you obviously believe those financial ads which say \'Past performance is no guide to future returns.\' If you do it makes handicapping a bit of a waste of time.

Finally, many years ago back in the UK, there was a woman of dubious repute called Mandy Rice-Davis who had a peripheral role in a sex scandal involving the Defence Minister John Profumo. She did, however, achieve a certain immortality during the court case by replying to a question: \'Well he would say that, wouldn\'t he?\' Any time anybody in the UK comes up with a self-serving defence then it\'s called a Mandy Rice-Davis moment. Perhaps the same applies to your Raggie friend and/or Len.

Cheers,

George

[Saddlecloth]

mandown wrote:

> The whole difference between the figure-making methodologies is that Jerry fits races to the horses\'s previous figures and thus can have different variants for different races  

> George

That is a scary sentence if you ask me, is that to imply that say a highly reputable and normally fast horse wins and runs a subpar figure, so the theory is that there must have been some kind of split varient that needed to be used, thus elevating the figure, or the other way around?  I mean why cant a race be judged for what it was, and not what a horse did last month.  Please correct me if I misinterpreted the statement.

[mandown]

Saddlecloth,

You hit the nail on the head - the whole problem is how do you judge a race for what it is. As Jerry has documented on many occasions track speed can change from one race to another either because of natural occurrences (such as rain or tides for coastal tracks) or because of track maintenance.

If you read the comments Jerry has posted from the NYRA track superintendent then you\'ll appreciate that not only can track speed change from race to race but also around the track itself. That\'s the reason we split variants.

No one would disagree that if there was a mechanical way of assessing track speed for any point on the track and mapping which parts of the track each horse raced on then that would be a more reliable way of measuring the variant for each race. Possibly one day it will come (I\'m an eternal optimist) but in the meantime the only way you can determine how fast a track was for a particular race is by looking at the figures that all the horses in the race have run previously. If you have a different method then I\'m all ears.

Finally consider the following: A stakes horse runs in an allowance race and wins narrowly from two 6-y-o cheap claimers in what appears to be a fast time and there is no evidence of any change in the track\'s speed. When you make the figure you find that either the stakes horse ran 5 points off its top or one claimer ran a 6pt new top and the other a 4pt new top.

Which is more likely? That for some reason the track speed changed and the stakes horse, though winning, ran 5pts off its top or that the the track speed didn\'t change and the two 6-y-o claimers both ran big new tops?

George

[miff]

JB and SADDLECLOTH,

JB, we had this discussion about tying races back to a previous effort which is blatantly ridiculous. How a horse performs today has NO relevance to what he did any other day.George is suggesting that the only reason a horse runs better or worse is because of today\'s variant.I am aware that many figure makers do this and that is why some very obvious sub- par or above par performances come up \"equal\" to previous races on the sheets/beyers as opposed to being legitimately better or worse.

Why not call a spade a spade?\"Of course get the variant correct but don\'t use it to back into a horses figure, let the performance speak for itself once the variant has been fixed.There are many, many, many reasons a horse runs faster or slower BESIDES the days variant.

IMO, you should start with the premise that unless you have a tangible reason to think the track changed speed (change of moisture, wind, work on the track etc...) the track speed \"probably\" remained the same (not certain).  

Using that assumption, if a figure does not make sense based on the prior abilities of the horses, you should examine the pace very closely to see if there were one or more fractions (interior) that were very fast or very slow that could account for the strange final time.  

If you do split a variant that could be related to pace (even if you are not certain), it should be noted because people that are using pace related information could potentially double count the impact if it was already baked into the figure via a separate track variant.

In fact, I think it would be a very good idea to note every single day where there was a split variant. That way a handicapper would have a better idea of the quality of the figure. NO matter how good a figure maker is, some days are easier and less prone to errors than others. I would like to know that.

Mandown,

>Finally consider the following: A stakes horse runs in an allowance race and wins narrowly from two 6-y-o cheap claimers in what appears to be a fast time and there is no evidence of any change in the track\'s speed. When you make the figure you find that either the stakes horse ran 5 points off its top or one claimer ran a 6pt new top and the other a 4pt new top.

Which is more likely? That for some reason the track speed changed and the stakes horse, though winning, ran 5pts off its top or that the the track speed didn\'t change and the two 6-y-o claimers both ran big new tops?<

It\'s a tough question.

I would guess it is more likely that the stakes horse ran slower, but absent evidence of a change of track speed I would mark that race in bold print because of the lack of certainty. Then, if the subsequent performances of the claimers indicated that they did indeed improve, I would go back and change the figure.

In the past Jerry and I have disagreed on this subject. I agree with him that going back and changing figures based on subsequent performances is a very bad idea in general, but not when you weren\'t sure what the figure should have been beforehand and subsequent performances give you further evidence.



Post Edited (09-17-04 10:57)

[miff]

Did you guys/gals see the much, much, much improved performance by Favorite Sweep in the 3rd at Belmont yesterday.1ST off the claim by DUTROW,one of the horses best performances in years. Someone posted here recently about the NUTRITION PROGRAM at the barns of the super trainers.Listen carefully, please!!

IT\'S THE DRUGS, STUPID!!!

[jbelfior]

Miff--

What puzzles me is that one does not see much of these Dutrow \"magical\" performances at Saratoga. However, as soon as the gates to Belmont reopen, whoosh.

I looked skeptically last year at some of the rapid improvements (during the Belmont spring meet) of the Kiarin McLaughlin horses coming over from Dubai.  They ran miserably at Saratoga only to rebound back at Belmont. Cycles? Coincdence?

Mr. Dutrow could not have found a better spot for HE LOVES ME then Philly Park. Think Saint Liam runs the same # in the Whitney at Saratoga???


Good Luck,
Joe B.

Do they use the same vet when they travel?



Post Edited (09-17-04 11:38)

[mandown]

miff,

If there were such a thing as a day\'s variant or a way of making a variant that was independent of the horses then all figure-makers would use it. But that\'s the whole point - there isn\'t one.

If you read Jerry Porcelli\'s comments on the way a track (or parts of a track) can change speed then you\'ll realise that the only way you can get a variant for a race is to look at the horses that ran in it.

It\'s not blatantly ridiculous, it\'s the only criterion you can use.

Neither do I see how you can interpret my remarks as saying that the only reason a horse runs better or worse is because of today\'s variant.

As you say there are many reasons a horse runs faster or slower. No handicapper would disagree. That is why figure-making is as much an art as a science.

You may want to call a spade a spade but classhandicapper is more on the mark when he expresses circumspection. Nothing in this game is certain. Handicapping and figure-making are not black and white, merely shades of grey.

George

[jimbo66]

George or JB,

When Miff says there are \"many many reasons a horse runs faster or slower\", I think most of us would agree with that.  What do you do with those races where matching up figures to previous races really won\'t help.  A few examples of what I am talking about:

1.  Trainer change to a Dutrow, Frankel, etc.  I won\'t get into HOW they improve horses dramatically, but they do, usually in the first race.  Comparing to Pre-Dutrow figures or Pre-Frankel figures, wouldn\'t seem to help.

2.  Major change in track surface.  Example, the Kentucky Derby this year.   That was about the time I started looking at this board and your product.  I remember thinking after the race that it would be impossible for Beyers, JB, or Len to make any accurate figures for that card.  The surface changed conditions about 5 times, from muddy to good to fast to good to sloppy.  And the track that the Derby was run over was ridiculously sloppy, obviously certain horses couldn\'t run over it (at least it seemed obvious to me).  I was shocked on Tuesday or Wednesday of the week after the Derby when somebody here asked JB about the Derby figures and he replied something like \"Actually is was a very easy race to make figures for\".  I think he keyed off of Limestone if I remember correctly.  I am paraphrasing and drawing on memory, so if I am slightly off, it is unintentional, but I do remember distinctly reading that JB thought it was not difficult.  I still find that shocking.

3.  Equipment changes.  I assume that T-Graph believes that blinkers and lasix can affect performance.

4.  This last one I am wasting my time with, since I know the answer already, but abnormal pace scenarios that helped/hurt horses in the race.

[mandown]

jim,

That\'s why figure-making is an art as well as a science. All the factors you mention are taken into account when we make variants. Do they make figure-making difficult? Of course they do but how they\'re handled is what sets one product apart from another.

As I\'ve said before, there are no certainties in handicapping or figure-making. To a great extent both are opinions derived from a set of facts - and as much experience as you can muster.

George

[TGJB]

...and, as is the question with a ceretain West coast trainer, what are the geographical logistics of his barn at each racetrack...

[asfufh]

>>Did you guys/gals see the much, much, much improved performance by Favorite Sweep in the 3rd at Belmont yesterday.1ST off the claim by DUTROW,one of the horses best performances in years. Someone posted here recently about the NUTRITION PROGRAM at the barns of the super trainers.Listen carefully, please!!
IT\'S THE DRUGS, STUPID<<<<<<

Hey Miff, It\'s stupid to bet games which you think are crooked, STUPID. Asfufh